Dear researchers,
I am investigating the impact of the political decisions made by the Trump administration, as well as by Congress, on the population of the United States of America. Due to the freeze on funding for federal agencies during the shutdown, programmes such as the "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programme" (SNAP) could not be funded. As a result, many people struggled to put food on the table, as they rely on federal assistance.
I now have the following question: Did this not disproportionately affect voters for the Republican Party and Donald Trump? Is there a correlation between people who receive SNAP support and the constituencies where the majority voted for Donald Trump?
It’s complicated
I am a literary scholar, not a political scientist or sociologist, so I do not consider myself an expert on this matter. But of course I am following the massive political, social and legal changes currently taking place with great interest and great concern. The question you’ve raised regarding the impact of the cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programme (SNAP) is not new to me, and I have read and heard a range of views on the matter. Now, having carried out research into texts – some of which are publicly available – from the New York Times, the Pew Research Centre, the Food Industry Association and the Economic Policy Institute, I understand why the information I’d received so far was so varied. As is so often the case, it is somewhat complicated.
More Democratic voters in absolute terms
To be precise: SNAP funding was cut as part of the (not particularly appealing) “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA). In absolute terms, there are more Democratic recipients of the SNAP food assistance programme in the US. According to a study by the consumer research firm Resonate from October 2025, 37 per cent of SNAP recipients identify as Democrats, 24 per cent as Republicans and 31 per cent as independents. In California alone – the most populous state, which reliably votes Democrat – there are approximately 5.5 million SNAP recipients.
A higher percentage of Republican states
On the other hand, there are a higher percentage in (more rural, whiter, more conservative) red states such as Oklahoma and West Virginia than in (more urban, more ethnically diverse, more liberal) blue states such as California and New York. A full 25 of the 30 states that voted for Trump have a higher percentage of SNAP recipients than the national average.
First-hand impact
Consequently, the cuts to SNAP implemented by the 2nd Trump administration and the Republican-dominated Congress are responsible for SNAP cuts that are perceived to hit the predominantly Republican-voting ‘red states’ harder than the predominantly Democratic-voting ‘blue states’. This is not only because a higher percentage of people in ‘red states’ receive food assistance, but also in the sense that people living in more rural states – often in villages or small towns – tend to be more closely connected to one another than urban populations. In a big city, you’re less likely to notice if your neighbour has run out of money for food than you would in a village or a small town. At least in this sense, Trump’s cuts to SNAP hit Trump voters particularly hard.
However, as mentioned above, the raw figures tell a different story: since more Democratic voters overall are SNAP recipients, Trump’s cuts affect more Democratic voters.
Conclusion: In absolute terms, more Democratic voters are affected by the SNAP cuts. Republican voters, however, will feel the cuts more acutely, at least subjectively.
Thank you for the interesting question! I hope my answer is helpful.